Other than an abuse of professional ethics and violation of a patient’s privacy, RFID on human bodies are not always hundred percent guaranteed to be safe. According to some studies, “chip implants had induced malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats” (Lewan, 2007). And even though experts argue that animal text results do not necessarily always apply to humans, the potential that the chips may have additional harm on people should be considered too risky for medical practitioners.
Careful attention should also be given on the possible negative side effects of the chip before it is encouraged to be placed inside a person’s body. Also, expanding the uses of chips to more than medical purposes could create urgent ethical issues. Implanting a chip to all citizens regardless of their health records or medical histories certainly threaten their individual integrity and are forsaken of their right to private lives. Without the person’s consent, implanting a foreign on object on his body is synonymous to a violation of their human and legal rights.
It is a literal invasion of privacy. The information on the implants can be easily accessed, misused, or manipulated and could actually cause more harm than benefits for the person. The technology of implants is very promising in the sense that it could be easily utilized by doctors in “life saving in emergency situations” (Foster and Jaeger, 2007, p. 2). But the decision to be implanted with chips for health care reasons should come from the decision of the patient.
It is very significant to consider that in advocating for the universal chipping of all people, the government is also endangering these individuals and forsaking them of their rights. The technology of RFID chips in humans is helpful, but it should be limited only for those people who are more in danger because of health problems like cancer patients, people with pacemakers or other medical implants, and patients with cases of cognitive impairment or loss of consciousness due to epilepsy, diabetes, or Alzheimer’s disease. Conclusion
There are no clear evidences that the RFID chips could help all patients facing medical emergencies. But there had been cases wherein the existence of chip implants had indeed help the medical team taking care of the patient. Despite this, it is still important for the committees investigating the potential of chip implants to push for the enactment of laws that would limit the implantations of chips to people. For the purpose of identification and recording of medical histories, there are indeed existing alternative solutions to the chips.
A patient should have a choice of how his or her health would be monitored and getting RFID chips under one’s skin should be the decision of the individual. No law or rule should ever force a person or a patient to have chips implanted inside their bodies without their consent because this would equate to unethical practices and a violation of their rights.
References
Allen, D. (2007). “Chip Implants may be fine for pets, but patients have rights. ” Nursing Standard. Vol. 21 (38). Pp. 28-29. Banks, J. , Pachano, M. A. , and Thompson, L. G. (2007). RFID Applied. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Foster, K. R. and Jaeger, J. (2007). RFID Inside: The Murky Ethics of Implanted Chips. Retrieved from <http://spectrum. ieee. org/print/4939>. Pp. 1-4. Lewan, T. (2007). “Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors. ” The Associated Press. Retrieved from <http://www. washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090800997_pf. html>. Wolinsky, H. (2006). “Tagging Products and People. ” EMBO Reports. Retrieved from <http://www. nature. com/embor/journal/v7/n10/full/7400810. html>.